Posts Tagged ‘religion’

Anti slavery people were always evil scum, and the modern left walks in their evil and hateful footsteps.

The Africa Association was founded to explore and economically develop africa. It came completely under the control of anti slavery people, and changed its purpose to opposing slavery and humanizing blacks, showing that the left were entryists back then as they are now.

So then as now, they engaged in perjury to accuse innocent people of grave crimes.

William Wilberforce, the founder of the anti slavery movement, purported to be an Anglican and to subscribe to the 39 articles, that being at the time a requirement to be allowed near the levers of power, but his claim was fraudulent, making him an apostate, for his church claimed that members of his church were saints, and regular Anglicans were not – and again, the left has not changed since then.

He should have been enslaved for apostasy in office, and sent to the West Indies, and if he had been England and the British Empire would still be going fine.

The Dark Enlightenment is libertarians mugged by reality, a libertarian who realizes that the eighteenth century was right about women, and Bull Conner right about blacks..

An anarcho capitalist favors a free market in law and defense agencies, defense agencies that are in many cases the private property of individuals and small groups. A neoreactionary is an anarcho capitalist who thinks that a monopoly defense agency that is the private property of one man (monarchy) or a cartel of defense agencies that are the private property of a few men (feudalism) is not so bad after all. Hence, throne conservatism.

He concludes that, progressivism being an official religion, therefore an official religion is unavoidable. He suspects that most people need religion to persuade them to act sensibly, hence, whether Atheist or Christian, he endorses altar conservatism. (Or in the case of Israel, Temple Judaism.)

He is wrong. Christianity really is to blame. First Christians became leftists, then, being leftists, became secularists.

Christianity became corrupted, then became secular because corrupted. It did not become corrupted because secular. It was corrupt when it opposed New Testament style marriage, slavery, and supported the emancipation of women. (more…)

If someone is a called a “moderate Muslim”, he is probably part of the establishment, part of our ruling elite, or spends much of his day in their circles.

If someone is a Muslim, and part of our ruling elite or close to it, he is probably a terrorist, or spends much of the rest of his day in their circles.

There is at most one degree of separation between the elite, and Islam. In contrast, there are several degrees of separation between the elite, and conventional Christianity.

Exhibit A in this story is Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, who spent a great deal of time walking and talking with US presidents Clinton and Bush and the usual parade of the good and the great – and who also addressed terror rallies demonizing the US. In 2004 was an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to assassinate the man who is now King of Saudi Arabia. So Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi is zero degrees of separation between the Cathedral and the terrorists.

Well, perhaps the Cathedral just happened to have one bad apple? But it’s other Muslim apples have smelly connections also.

Suhail Khan: Wikipedia tells us “Khan serves on the Board of Directors for the American Conservative Union, the Indian American Republican Council, the Islamic Free Market Institute, and on the interfaith Buxton Initiative Advisory Council. He speaks regularly at conferences and venues such as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the Council for National Policy (CNP), the Harbour League, and the National Press Club and has contributed to publications such as the Washington Post/Newsweek Forum On Faith, the Washington Post, Foreign Policy, and Human Events.”

Suhail Khan is Senior Fellow at the Institute for Global Engagement, a Christian organization dedicated to religious freedom worldwide.

So Suhail Khan is one degree of separation between the Cathedral and terrorism.

Similarly for Imam Feisal Adbul Rauf, of the ground zero victory mosque. So of three Muslims that I noticed as being Cathedral insiders, three had ties to terror.

It does not appear the Cathedral is consciously and cynically cozying up to terrorists – Suhail Khan put quite a bit of effort into appearing to be moderate. Rather, they turn a blind eye to terrorist connections, because to do otherwise would be racism and discrimination – while quite slight and vague connections to conventional Christianity cause them to reel back in shock and horror, like a vampire at the sight of the cross, as they do from Sarah Palin.

They want to include Muslims, but terrorism is as central to Islam as the Eucharist is to Christianity, and so if someone is an important Muslim, he is apt to have important connections to terror, and if a Muslim is in with the Cathedral, he is an important Muslim. In contrast, if a nominal Christian knew what the Eucharist was, the Cathedral would treat him with extreme suspicion.

This is not a pro terror bias, but an anti discrimination bias – which bias in practice means we are not allowed to discriminate against people trying to kill us.

Sean Gabb, speaking very carefully to avoid saying things he could be arrested for, tell us:

Without thinking very hard, I can remember how Nick Griffin of the British National Party stood trial for having called Islam “a wicked vicious faith”. I can remember how a drunken student was arrested and fined for telling a policeman that his horse looked “gay”. I can remember how a man was arrested and charged and fined for standing beside the Cenotaph and reading out the names of the British war dead in Iraq. I remember a case from this year where a pacifist unfurled a banner outside an army cadet training base. “Stop training murderers”, it said. His home was promptly raided by police with dogs, while a helicopter hovered overhead.He was arrested and cautioned. If I started mentioning the cases where Christian street preachers have been arrested for quoting the Bible, or where Moslems have set the police on people for alleged words or displays, or if I even alluded to the Public Order Act or the various racial and sexual hate speech laws, this article would swell immensely. It is enough to say that anything said in public is now illegal if someone complains to the police, or if the police themselves take against it. And, when something is not illegal, we are all getting used to the idea – second nature in most other countries – that we should “watch ourselves”. Even I find that, if I discuss politics in a coffee bar, I sometimes drop my voice. A few weeks ago, I found myself looking round to see who might be within earshot.

Islam is theocratic. It intends to conquer. Shariah law, as interpreted by most Muslims, treats women fine. Trouble is, as interpreted by all Muslims, even Sufis, it requires that infidels submit to law that makes them second class to believers and that Muslims fight to impose such law – and we are in fact submitting to such law. The rather small Sufi minority merely propose less drastic measures to impose inferiority.

How many Christians reacted violently to Piss Christ? Not a one, zero. How many Muslims reacted violently to cartoon Mohammed? Hundreds of thousands committed criminal acts, millions cheered them on.

All the great leaders of Islam were war makers, military leaders, conquerors, slavers. This just is not a pattern you see in Christianity. Not only did the original prophet of Islam massacre defeated populations, every subsequent great Islamic religious leader acted similarly – some better, some worse, but all directly commanded wars, personally led them, and took extreme measures to subjugate the defeated population. In contrast, absolutely zero great Christian religious leaders has done this – you do not see popes and bishops leading armies, burning towns, and personally ordering the rape of the women of the conquered.

Christian leaders that combined the role of military and religious leader have always been a marginal phenomenon, and phenomenon that occurred only among those directly at war with Islam: the Knights of Malta and the Knights Templar. Further, those combining Christian religious and secular power have frequently led their followers to disaster by recollecting Christ’s command to forgive one’s enemies and turn the other cheek at some highly inopportune moment, as Grand Master Bolheim of the Knights of Malta did.

Just as there is in all the world not one Christian who called for violence against the creators of Piss Christ and Andres Serrano, there is in all the world not one Muslim very few Muslims who condemned the fatwa against Molly Norris. In that sense, every single Christian in the entire world is opposed to holy war and seeks peace, and every single Muslim in the entire world supports holy war and seeks conquest.

Let us imagine the situation was reversed, and some notable Christian preacher was to call for the murder of Andres Serrano. Obviously, if this happened, which it never would, every other notable Christian leader would condemn that call. Compare and contrast with the call for the murder of Molly Norris. Not every Muslim has called for the murder of Molly Norris, but not one Muslim has condemned the call either.

In traditional society, women were strongly encouraged to refrain from sex before marriage, and marry responsible men with good jobs who were able and willing to support a family.

Today, women are encouraged to follow their hormones, which tends to result in them have offspring with a long succession of sexy males who disappear, often into jail or dying violently, and who often rough them up and steal their money before leaving.

Bryan Caplan correctly argues that the non traditional family does not necessarily harm children, because the low conventional success rate of children from such families may well reflect them behaving like their fathers, who have a different standard of what constitutes success, and may well be very successful by that standard – more chicks banged, less time wasted from nine to five, and more enemies maimed. Further, women who choose to have a non traditional family presumably prefer it – there can be little doubt that the sex is hotter the badder the boy.

Now this is a good deal for alpha males, and lots of women argue it is a good deal for women, but it has a sizable externality, in that it encourages male behavior that causes problems for other men, and produces children that cause problems for other people. Bastards are bastards. The production of bastards creates large external costs. Encouraging fidelity, chastity, and female preference for responsible mates, even though their hormones tend to cry out for demon lovers, reduces other people’s costs – in traditional society the costs to fathers, uncles, and brothers of grown women, in modern society the cost of the welfare state, in all societies the cost of crime.

The welfare state reduces the costs of hormonal female behavior to parents of those females, since the cost of bastardy is externalized to the rest of society to a greater extent, and thus reduces the incentive of parents to inculcate their daughters with traditional values and deprecate the natural behavior of females – the natural inclination of women being more towards the demon lover. Women can be socialized, pressured, and monitored into fidelity to males that materially support them and help raise their kids, but it takes a firm hand and a watchful eye. While Islamic society takes this to extremes, the other extreme, total neglect of this problem, has costs also.

It goes up, it goes down. If there is any trend, the trend is less than the decade to decade fluctuations, and is not at all apocalyptic. This differs from other graphs you may have seen because it starts at the start of the satellite data and ends at the present, instead of starting in with a reconstruction of what might have been a cool year if we had accurate global data way back then, which we don’t, and ending in 2005, the most recent warm year.

Again, it goes up, it goes down. If there is any trend, the trend is less than the decade to decade fluctuations, and is not at all apocalyptic. Again this differs from similar graphs you may have seen, which usually start in 1988 (a year with exceptionally large ice area) and end in 2007 (a year with exceptionally small ice area), and show only the Northern Hemisphere, where we recently had some exceptionally warm years, leaving out the Southern Hemisphere, where we recently had some exceptionally cold years.

As you can see, nothing much is happening – looks like the world is warming, but not enough to be noticeable – nor enough to be sure that it actually is warming.

Thus irrespective of the validity of anthropogenic global warming, the belief that apocalypse is upon us, that something urgent must be done, is religious, based on the feeling that we have sinned against Gaea and her wrath will come upon us, not based on any scientific evidence.